Russian Journal of Theriology. Main page    

Russian Journal of Theriology. Main page
Free access to the published articles
Information about online submission, Articles format, Instructions for authors etc
Instructions for reviewers
Subscription and prices

Русскоязычный вариант сайта
Behavioral specialization among group members in the captive mandarin vole, Lasiopodomys mandarinus (Rodentia, Arvicolidae).
Smorkatcheva A.V., Smolnyakova E.S.
P. 33-42
Group-living and cooperative breeding in the mandarin vole Lasiopodomys mandarinus were proposed to be an adaptation (or preadaptation) to the fossorial mode of life (Smorkatcheva, 1999). This hypothesis involved indirect benefits that gain offspring by helping their mother in tunnel construction among the factors promoting cooperative breeding. Answer to the question “which animals do provide the most help?” may allow us to understand whether helpers derive direct or indirect benefits from their action. In this study we compared the contributions to nest-residence, digging, bringing objects, eating and the digging/eating rates between different sex-age categories. We observed groups composed of pair of breeders, 1-9 weaned offspring and unweaned pups in artificial tunnel systems. Only daughters older 35 days participated extensively (along with their fathers) in transport and burrow construction. Overall, the digging/eating rate was greater in daughters than in mothers. This provides evidence that young females perform some excess workload to be used up, potentially, by reproductive female. Sons, independently of their age, and daughters under 35 days were engaged very little (lesser than other members of families) in burrow construction and transport. Sons under 60 days, daughter older 60 days and fathers were the major baby-sitters. Sex differences in degree of the most expensive activities are inconsistent with the kin-selection hypothesis, but can be explained in the framework of delayed reciprocity or group augmentation hypothesis. Another (non-alternative) explanation of the revealed sex-bias is that burrow construction would be parental, not only alloparental, investment for daughter should it attain a breeding position at natal territory.

DOI: 10.15298/rusjtheriol.3.1.06


  • Altmann J. 1974. Observational study of behaviour: sampling methods // Behaviour. Vol.49. No.3-4. P.227-267.
  • Bennett N.C. & Jarvis J.U.M. 1988. The social structure and reproductive biology of colonies of the mole-rat, Cryptomys damarensis (Rodentia: Bathyergidae) // Journal of Mammalogy. Vol.69. No.2. P.209-302.
  • Bennett N.C. 1989. The social structure and reproductive biology of the common mole-rat, Cryptomys hottentotus hottentotus and remarks on the trends in reproduction and sociality in the family Bathyergidae // Journal of Zoology, London. Vol.219. No.1. P.45-59.
  • Brotherton P.N.M., Clutton-Brock T.H., O'Riain M.J., Gainor D., Sharpe L., Kansky R. & McIlrath G.M. 2001. Offspring food allocation by parents and helper in a cooperative mammal // Behavioural Ecology. Vol.12. No.5. P.590-599.
  • Burda H. 1990. Constraints of pregnancy and evolution of sociality in mole-rats with special reference to reproductive and social patterns in Cryptomys hottentotus (Bathiergidae, Rodentia) // Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung. Bd.28. Hf.1. P.26-39.
  • Burda H., Honeycutt R.L., Rodney L., Begall S., Locker-Gruetjen O. & Scharff A. 2000. Are naked and common mole-rats eusocial and if so, why? // Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology. Vol.47. No.5. P.293-303.
  • Clutton-Brock T.H. 2002. Kin selection and mutualism in cooperative vertebrates // Science. Vol.296. No.5565. P.69-72.
  • Evdokimov N.G. 2001. [Population Ecology of the Mole-vole]. Ekaterinburg: Ural'skoe Otdelenie Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk. 142 p. [in Russian].
  • Fitzgerald R.W. & Madison D.M. 1983. Social organization of a free-ranging population of pine vole, Microtus pinetorum // Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology. Vol.13. No.4. P.183-187.
  • Gaston A.J. 1978. The evolution of group territorial behavior and cooperative breeding // American Naturalist. Vol.112. No.988. P.1091-1110.
  • Gubernick D.J.& Laskin B. 1994. Mechanisms influencing sibling care in the monogamous biparental California mouse, Peromyscus californicus // Animal Behaviour. Vol.48. No.5. P.1235-1237.
  • Hamilton W.D. 1964. The genetic evolution of social behaviour // Journal of the Theoretical Biology. Vol.7. No.1. P.1-52.
  • Jamieson I.G. 1989. Behavioral heterochrony and the evolution of bird's helping at the nest: an unselected consequence of communal breeding? // American Naturalist. Vol.133. No.3. P.394-406.
  • Jarvis J.U.M. 1981. Eusociality in a mammal: cooperative breeding in naked mole-rat colonies // Science. Vol.212. (Washington D C). 212 (4494). P.571-573.
  • Krebs J.R. & Davies N.B. 2000. An Introduction to Behavioural Ecology. Third Edition. City: Blackwell Science. 140 p.
  • Lacey E.A. 2000. Spatial and social systems of subterranean rodents // Lacey E.A., Patton J.L. & Cameron G.N. (eds.). Life Underground. The biology of Subterranean Rodents. Chicago & London: Chicago University Press. P.257-296.
  • Lancaster J.B. 1971. Play-mothering: the relations between juvenile females and young infants among free-ranging vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops) // Folia Primatologia. Vol.15. No.3-4. P.161-182.
  • Ligon J.D.& Ligon S.H. 1978. Green woodhoopoes: life-history traits and sociality // Stacey P.B. & Koenig W.D. (eds.). Cooperative Breeding in Birds: Long-term Studies of Ecology and Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P.33-65.
  • Moolman M., Bennet N.C. & Schoeman A.S. 1998. The social structure and dominance hierarchy of the highveld mole-rat Cryptomys hottentotus pretoriae (Rodentia: Bathyergidae) // Journal of Zoology, London. Vol.246. No.2. P.193-201.
  • Owens D.D.& Owens M.J. 1984. Helping behaviour in brown hyaenas // Nature. Vol.308. No.5962. P.843-845.
  • Powell R.A. & Fried J.J. 1992. Helping by juvenile pine voles (Microtus pinetorum), growth and survival of younger siblings, and the evolution of pine vole sociality // Behavioural Ecology. Vol.3. No.4. P.325-333.
  • Skutch A.F. 1961. Helpers among birds // Condor. Vol.63. No.3 P.198-226.
  • Smorkatcheva A. 1999. The social organization of the mandarine vole, Lasiopodomys mandarinus, during the reproductive period // Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde. Bd.64. Hf.6. P.344-355.
  • Smorkatcheva A.V., Aksenova, T.G. & Zorenko T.A. 1990. [The ecology of Lasiopodomys mandarinus (Rodentia, Cricetidae) in the Transbaikal area] // Zoologicheskii Zhurnal. T.69. No.12. P.115-124 [in Russian, with English summary].
  • Smorkatcheva A.V. 2002. [Effect of social environment on social maturation and reproduction in captive female mandarin voles, Lasiopodomys mandarinus] // Zoologicheskii Zhurnal. T.81. No.8. P.991-998 [in Russian, with English summary].
  • Smorkatcheva A. 2002. Social system in the mandarin vole Lasiopodomys mandarinus: results of field and laboratory studies // Le Boulengé E. (ed.). Rodens and Spatium. Eighth International Conference, Louvain-la-Neuve, July 22-26, 2002. P.101.
  • Smorkatcheva A.V. 2003. Parental care in the captive mandarin vole, Lasiopodomys mandarinus // Canadian Journal of Zoology. Vol. 81. No.8. P.1339-1345.
  • Solomon N. G. 1991. Current indirect fitness benefits associated with philopatry in juvenile prairie voles // Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology. Vol.29. No.4. P.277-282.
  • Solomon N.G. & Getz L.L. 1997. Examination of alternative hypotheses for cooperative breeding in rodents. // Solomon N.G. & French T.A. (eds.). Cooperative Breeding in Mammals. New York: Cambridge University Press. P.199-230.
  • Woolfenden G.E.& Fitzpatric J.W. 1978. The inheritance of territory in group-breeding birds // Bioscience. Vol.28. No.2. P.104-108.
  • Zorenko T.A., Smorkatcheva A.V. & Aksenova T.G. 1994. [Reproduction and postnatal ontogenesis of mandarin vole Lasiopodomys mandarinus (Rodentia, Arvicolinae)] // Zoologicheskii Zhurnal. T.73. No.6. P.120-129 [in Russian, with English summary].

Download PDF